See the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Pritchard v. State, available here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3978546185823845591&q=Pritchard+Indiana&hl=en&as_sdt=2,15

“Even where the jury finds that the State has proven the statutory elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury still has the unquestioned right to determine whether in this case returning a verdict of guilty promotes fairness and the ends of justice.”

This seems completely incorrect to me. I don’t see anything that requires the jury to have the right to ignore the law simply because they think it’s unfair and substitute what they think the law should be.

And I should note, if you think they have this power, they should be able to use it to find guilt as well as innocence. If the law requires a particular element for an offense, but the jury feels the ends of justice are better met if that element need not be proven, then do they have the right to substitute that law too?